No General Descriptions provided.
| 36 S |
| Konya Plain - Early Chalcolithic |
| NO_VALUE_ON_WIKI |
| wczesna epoka miedzi wczesny chalkolit Centralnej Anatolii | |
| Fruh chalkolite Zentralanatolien | |
| une chalcolite precoce d Anatolie centrale pierre d une periode Chalcolithique d Anatolie Centrale | |
| Orta Anadolu da Erken Kalkolitik Donem |
| uncoded [---] |
| Konya Plain - Late Chalcolithic |
| continuity |
| Preceding: Konya Plain - Late Neolithic (tr_konya_lnl) [continuity] | |
| Succeeding: Konya Plain - Late Chalcolithic (tr_konya_lca) [continuity] |
| quasi-polity |
| [2,500 to 3,800] people |
| [2,500 to 4,000] people |
| inferred absent |
| inferred absent |
| inferred absent |
| inferred absent |
| inferred absent |
| inferred absent |
| inferred absent |
| inferred absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| inferred absent |
| inferred absent |
| inferred absent |
| inferred absent |
| inferred absent |
| inferred absent |
| inferred absent |
| inferred absent |
| inferred absent |
| inferred absent |
| inferred absent |
| inferred absent |
| inferred absent |
| absent |
| unknown |
| absent |
| present |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| present |
| inferred present |
| present | |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| present |
| absent |
| present |
| unknown |
| present |
| inferred present |
| unknown |
| unknown |
| absent |
| absent |
| inferred absent |
| unknown |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| Year Range | Konya Plain - Early Chalcolithic (tr_konya_eca) was in: |
|---|---|
| (6000 BCE 5001 BCE) | Konya Plain |
unknown
We cannot determine the capital for the whole of this region unambiguously. However, it is possible that Can Hasan I, which would provide smaller villages with raw materials, could have had a similar function. Also, Çatalhöyük West, with its 8 ha, is much larger than other sites, and it has beem suggested that it played a role of a central site
[1]
.
[1]: Baird, D. "Early Holocene settlement in Central Anatolia: Problems and prospects as seen from the Konya Plain. In F. Gerard and L. Thissen eds., ’The Neolithic of Central Anatolia’. Istanbul 2002:150
wczesna epoka miedzi/wczesny chalkolit Centralnej Anatolii; Früh chalkolite Zentralanatolien; une chalcolite précoce d’Anatolie centrale/piérre d’une période Chalcolithique d’Anatolie Centrale; Orta Anadolu’da Erken Kalkolitik Dönem ... this is not machine readable.
wczesna epoka miedzi/wczesny chalkolit Centralnej Anatolii; Früh chalkolite Zentralanatolien; une chalcolite précoce d’Anatolie centrale/piérre d’une période Chalcolithique d’Anatolie Centrale; Orta Anadolu’da Erken Kalkolitik Dönem ... this is not machine readable.
wczesna epoka miedzi/wczesny chalkolit Centralnej Anatolii; Früh chalkolite Zentralanatolien; une chalcolite précoce d’Anatolie centrale/piérre d’une période Chalcolithique d’Anatolie Centrale; Orta Anadolu’da Erken Kalkolitik Dönem ... this is not machine readable.
wczesna epoka miedzi/wczesny chalkolit Centralnej Anatolii; Früh chalkolite Zentralanatolien; une chalcolite précoce d’Anatolie centrale/piérre d’une période Chalcolithique d’Anatolie Centrale; Orta Anadolu’da Erken Kalkolitik Dönem ... this is not machine readable.
[1]
The chronology for areas of Central Anatolia is based on a modified version of the three-age system developed in European archaeology (Stone, Bronze and Iron ages). For areas of Anatolia, two additional terms were introduced: Aceramic Neolithic and Chalcolithic. The latter is not, as the name would suggest, determined on the basis of copper artifacts, but on the basis of the emergence of painted pottery. It derives from Mesopotamia, where the division of the Neolithic and the Chalcolithic was related to the introduction of painted pottery.
The most recent attempt to construct a healthy chronological scheme for the Central Anatolian Neolithic was proposed by the CANeW workshop
[2]
. On the basis of the archaeological evidence from various sites in the region, the time trajectories of the development were identified, taking into account not a wide scope of aspects - architectural developments, burial practices, material culture (pottery, lithic industry, metallurgy etc.) and economy. The main unit of the proposed scheme is ECA - Early Central Anatolian. The ECA IV (6000-5500 cal BC) corresponds to what is conventionally labeled as ’Early Chalcolithic’.
At the start of the Early Chalcolithic, around 6000 cal. BC, we can see a continuation of the changes settlement patterns that began in the Late Neolithic. This period is marked by a shift in settlement from Çatalhöyük East to Çatalhöyük West and the existence of full- farming sites such as Can Hasan I, Koşk Höyük and Tepecik-Çiftlik. The number of sites in the region increased
[3]
.
The date 5500 cal BC marks a major disruption: most of the sites were abandoned. This date marks the beginning of the Middle Chalcolithic - it is a completely new period different from the preceding, a prelude of a new system
[4]
. The nature of this major breakage is still under-recognized.
As for radiocarbon dating:The levels II-V (Neolithic and Chalcolithic)of Koşk Höyük date to 6300-5600 cal BC
[5]
.From the Early Chalcolithic Level 3 at Tepecik - Çiftlik, we have a single c14 date - around 6000 BC
[6]
.Six radiocarbon dates are available from Can Hasan 2B which, when combined, provide a time range between 5715-5635 cal. BCE. Absolute dates from levels 7-3 are not available
[7]
.As for the Çatalhöyük West, the c14 samples were taken from a deep sounding and cannot draw a conclusive picture yet. Nevertheless, onedate 5980 to 5810 cal BC (68% probability
[8]
).
[1]: Düring Bleda S., 2010. The prehistory of Asia Minor. From complex hunter-gatherers to early urban societies.,Cambridge University Press, p. 127-129
[2]: Özbaşaran, M., Buitenhuis, H., “Proposal for a regional terminology for Central Anatolia” The Neolithic of Central Anatolia. Internal developments and external relations during the 9th-6th millennia cal BC, F. Gerard, L. Thiessen (eds.).2002, Ege Yayinlari, Istanbul;
[3]: Baird, D., ‘Konya Plain’ Anatolian Archaeology 3 (1997), p. 13
[4]: Özbaşaran, M., Buitenhuis, H., 2002, Proposal for a regional terminology for Central Anatolia, F. Gerard, L. Thiessen (eds.), The Neolithic of Central Anatolia. Internal developments and external relations during the 9th-6th millennia cal BC, Ege Yayinlari, Istanbul; p.71
[5]: Öztan, A. 2012 “Koşk Höyük” .M. Özdoğan , N. Başgelen, P. Kuniholm (eds.) , The Neolithic in Turkey. New excavations & new research, Central Turkey, Archaeology and Art publications, Istanbul: 45
[6]: Bıçakçı,E. 2012, “Tepecik - Çiftlik” M. Özdoğan , N. Başgelen, P. Kuniholm (eds.) , The Neolithic in Turkey. New excavations & new research, Central Turkey, Archaeology and Art publications, Istanbul: 104
[7]: Çilingiroglu, Ç. "Central-West Anatolia at the end of 7th and beginning of 6th millennium BCE in the light of pottery from Ulucak (Izmir)." (2009).
[8]: Biehl, P., et al. "One community and two tells: the phenomenon of relocating tell settlements at the turn of the 7th and 6th millennia in Central Anatolia." Socio-environmental Dynamics Over the Last 12 (2012): 59.
The area of Central Anatolia is distinct for the fact that each site corresponds to a separate culture. However, it is possible to posit contacts between them, through similarities in pottery decorations (motifs)or architectural systems.
Between 2564-3846 people.
Calculations are based on the level 2B of Canhasan I, and the assumption that in each of the buildings, a family with about 5 persons resided
[1]
[1]: During Bleda S., Constructing Communities. Clustered Neigbourhood Settlements of the Cental Anatolia Neolithic CA. 8500-5500 Cal. BC. 2006, p. 278
Between 2564-3846 people.
Calculations are based on the level 2B of Canhasan I, and the assumption that in each of the buildings, a family with about 5 persons resided
[1]
Çatalhöyük West: 8 ha; Canhasan I: 9ha; Yümüktepe/ Mersin: 12ha; Tepecik - Çiftlik: 6 ha; Köşk Höyük:4 ha
[2]
[3]
[1]: During Bleda S., Constructing Communities. Clustered Neigbourhood Settlements of the Cental Anatolia Neolithic CA. 8500-5500 Cal. BC. 2006, p. 278
[2]: Düring Bleda S., 2010. The prehistory of Asia Minor. From complex hunter-gatherers to early urban societies.,Cambridge University Press, p. 138-139
[3]: Sharp Joukowsky Martha, 1996. Early Turkey Anatolian archaeology from prehistory through the Lydian Period., Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company USA, p. 108
For the social complexity variables, we do not have a lot of data. The site of Canhasan should be mentioned here - while territorially it is not the largest settlement for this period (about 3 hectares less than Yümüktepe / Mersin), it is possible that Canhasan could have served as the capital, which would provide smaller villages with raw materials. For the category of ’Specialized Buildings’, it was not easy to determine types of buildings, because buildings for this period are characterized by compact clusters of buildings, which often serve residential, ceremonial or storage functions, as they did in the previous period.
Not mentioned by sources, would require expert input. Rituals in the Early Chalcolicthic include burials of all types. Most burials are located under the floors of houses, bodies stacked on the right side in hocker position. In many cases, the skull is missing. At Köşk Höyük, all burials have burial gifts such as vessels, beads, and obsidian tools. Anthropomorphic figurines have also been found, which are most probably connected to some unspecified rituals. Widespread standardisation and routinisation of ritual practices (e.g. burial, house burning, wall plastering) at Çatalhöyük suggests at least some religious hierarchy [1] .
[1]: Whitehouse, H. & Hodder, I. in Religion in the emergence of civilization: Çatalhöyük as a case study (ed. Hodder, I.) 122-145 (Cambridge University Press, 2010).
For the period of the Early Chalcolithic, we do not know of any specific conflicts between different social groups or cultures. We have no evidence of archaeological or historical warfare. However, the lack of such evidence does not mean we can exclude the potential of warfare taking place. The listed handheld weapons have been placed in the category of warfare because we have no archaeological evidence for the purposes for which they were used - whether they were used only for hunting or for hypothetical battles. PF: However, the presence of finds such as a large copper mace head from Can Hasan I, the removal and caching of plastered human skulls from Kösk Höyük suggest a socially competitive environment [1]
[1]: Arbuckle, B. S. "Animals and inequality in Chalcolithic central Anatolia." Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 31.3 (2012): 303
For the social complexity variables, we do not have a lot of data. The site of Canhasan should be mentioned here - while territorially it is not the largest settlement for this period (about 3 hectares less than Yümüktepe / Mersin), it is possible that Canhasan could have served as the capital, which would provide smaller villages with raw materials. For the category of ’Specialized Buildings’, it was not easy to determine types of buildings, because buildings for this period are characterized by compact clusters of buildings, which often serve residential, ceremonial or storage functions, as they did in the previous period. PF: However, the presence of finds such as a large copper mace head from Can Hasan I, the removal and caching of plastered human skulls from Kösk Höyük suggest a socially competitive environment [1]
[1]: Arbuckle, B. S. "Animals and inequality in Chalcolithic central Anatolia." Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 31.3 (2012): 303
No information found in relevant literature.
The following quote indicates that among the variety of decorated objects found, none had any markings that could be interpreted as inscriptions
At Çatalhöyük West, L-shaped clay objects were found, with geometric incised decorations. The same objects were found also in Çatalhöyük East
[1]
. In total, nearly 400 of these objects have been recorded at Çatalhöyük
[2]
. These are the so-called ’potstands’. Placed in pairs over the fire, they would support a cooking pot
[3]
. As they appear in the Late Neolithic, they may be an important indicator of a shift away from the use of interior fixed architectural fire installations for cooking, towards the use of ceramic vessels balanced on potstands
[2]
.Potstands have also been found at Can Hasan (mainly in levels II and I).
[4]
. "At Can Hasan is some evidence that walls were coated with white plaster, and fragment of red-on-white painted plaster suggest some rooms were ornamented with geometric patterns."
[5]
"Simple; geometrical decorated painted plaster pieces; recovered in the space deposit; on the floor; are observed to have come from the upper levels due to their lying position. A thin level of gray or light blue whitewash on white plaster was revealed in one of the rooms of a building (No:3). Red paint on white plaster was used on the walls and on the floor of another building (No:9)."
[6]
Here, decorated pottery should be mentioned. Some of the sherds reveal pointille, impressed, scratched, incised and channeled decoration. Triangles, zigzags, and wavy-lines are the frequent patterns in decoration
[7]
. Pottery in the Early Chalcolithic is mostly painted. The majority of the decorations are red or brown painted straight‐line geometric motifs, applied over a cream or yellowish‐buff slip, which is subsequently burnished. It is characteristic of the Konya Plain sites, such as Çatalhöyük West and Canhasan. For sites of Cappadocia, pottery is characterized by relief decorations (e.g. sites: Köşk Höyük and Tepecik / Çiftlik)
[8]
. "The fine wares decorated with high reliefs of Köşk Höyük Levels I and II are extraordinary. These depict the mother goddess; other deities; human figures; vegetation; and various animals such as bull; goat; donkey; antelope; deer; serpent; ram; tortoise; and birds. Some of these depictions are stylized like the goddess figures with her hair waving with the wind and the one with her hands on her waist or realistic like a chamois. Some are decorated with white incrustation and some (especially serpents’ eyes) with inlayed obsidian pieces."
[9]
PF: interpretation of the figurines as representations of the Goddess is nowadays considered universalistic and non-context dependent and, as such, rejected.
[1]: Düring Bleda S., 2010. The prehistory of Asia Minor. From complex hunter-gatherers to early urban societies.,Cambridge University Press, p. 133
[2]: Ketchum S., “The Ovens and Hearths of Çatalhöyük: Neolithic and Chalcolithic Cooking and Pyrotechnology”. Catalhoyuk Archive Report 2013: 260
[3]: Mellaart, J., "Çatal Hüyük West." Anatolian Studies 15 (1965): 153, fig. 10
[4]: French, D. 2010. Canhasan Sites 3: Canhasan 1: The Small Finds. London: 43-44, fig. 39-40
[5]: Sagona Antonio, Zimansky Paul, 2009. Ancient Turkey. Routledge, London, New York, p.128
[6]: French D.H., 1968. Can Hasan 1966. Ankara, p.90
[7]: Tezcan B., 1958. Aksaray Çevresinden Derlenen Eserler. Ankara.
[8]: Burcin ERDOGU, 2009. Ritual symbolism in the Early Chalcolithic period of Central Anatolia. Journal for Interdisciplinary Research on Religion and Science, p.134
[9]: http://www.tayproject.org/TAYages.fm$Retrieve?CagNo=1990&html=ages_detail_e.html&layout=web
not yet found in settlements such as Çatal Höyük
No information in the archaeological evidence for this time, even if stone architecture has been found in Göbekli Tepe, it does not appear to be for military purposes [1]
[1]: https://www.tf.uni-kiel.de/matwis/amat/iss/kap_a/advanced/ta_1_2b.html
Only archaeological evidence for mudbrick walls at this time
not yet found in settlements such as Çatal Höyük
not yet found in settlements such as Çatal Höyük
Technology not found in archaeological evidence until much later
Technology not found in archaeological evidence until much later
Technology not found in archaeological evidence until much later. Beads and tools carved from copper have been found but no weapons or smelting at this time [1]
[1]: https://www.tf.uni-kiel.de/matwis/amat/iss/kap_a/advanced/ta_1_2c.html
Technology not found in archaeological evidence until much later
At the site of Can Hasan I, clay sling bullet was found, which may suggest the use of slings. [1] 4500 BCE: "Sling invented at Catal Huyuk in Anatolia." [2] The shape and appearance of the blunt force traumatic injuries identified at Çatalhöyük are consistent with injuries from both handheld blunt objects but also from projectiles - thrown stones or other objects. The number, shape, and location on the top and back of the cranium suggest that objects, thrown or sling-delivered, support an association. [3] At the site of Canhasan I, clay sling bullet was found [4] , which may suggest the use of slings, but whether it was used for warfare purposes is unknown.
[1]: (French 2010: 44) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/U6GA7BJN.
[2]: (Gabriel 2007, xii) Richard A Gabriel. 2007. Soldiers’ Lives Through History: The Ancient World. Greenwood Press. Westport.
[3]: Christopher J. Knüsel, Bonnie Glencross, ‘Çatalhöyük, Archaeology, Violence’, ‘’Contagion: Journal of Violence, Mimesis, and Culture’’, Volume 24, 2017, pp. 29-32
[4]: French D. 2010."Canhasan I: The Small Finds", The British Institute at Ankara. pg. 44.
Bone harpoons found for this time, but it is unclear if used for warfare or hunting. [1] The harpoon could have been used for hunting or warfare. No evidence yet of a javelin weapon designed specifically for or in active use for warfare.
[1]: (Leverani 2014, 36) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
Bone harpoons found for this time, but it is unclear if used for warfare or hunting. [1] The harpoon could have been used for hunting or warfare. No evidence yet of a javelin weapon designed specifically for or in active use for warfare.
[1]: (Leverani 2014, 36) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
"Composite bows are known from both Mesopotamia and the Great Steppe from the III millennium BCE." [1] "The composite bows spread into Palestine around 1800 BCE and were introduced into Egypt by the Hyksos in 1700 BCE." [2]
[1]: Sergey A Nefedov, RAN Institute of History and Archaeology, Yekaterinburg, Russia. Personal Communication to Peter Turchin. January 2018.
[2]: (Roy 2015, 20) Kaushik Roy. 2015. Warfare in Pre-British India - 1500 BCE to 1740 CE. Routledge. London.
The shape and appearance of the blunt force traumatic injuries identified at Çatalhöyük are consistent with injuries from both handheld blunt objects but also from projectiles - thrown stones or other objects. The number, shape, and location on the top and back of the cranium suggest that objects, thrown or sling-delivered, support an association. [1] There is a rich groundstone industry, both for grinding plant material and ochres, and for small axes and maces. [2] According to a military historian (this data needs to be checked by a polity specialist) "The mace was among man’s oldest weapons (at least 6000 B.C.E. at Catal Huyuk)". [3]
[1]: Christopher J. Knüsel, Bonnie Glencross, ‘Çatalhöyük, Archaeology, Violence’, ‘’Contagion: Journal of Violence, Mimesis, and Culture’’, Volume 24, 2017, pp. 29-32
[2]: Ian Hodder, ‘Çatalhöyük: A Prehistoric Settlement on the Konya Plain’, The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia: (10,000-323 BCE), Edited by Gregory McMahon and Sharon Steadman, 2011, p. 945
[3]: (Gabriel 2002, 51) Richard A Gabriel. 2002. The Great Armies of Antiquity. Praeger. Westport.
According to a military historian (this data needs to be checked by a polity specialist) "All armies after the seventeenth century B.C.E. carried the sword, but in none was it a major weapon of close combat; rather, it was used when the soldier’s primary weapons, the spear and axe, were lost or broken." [1]
[1]: (Gabriel 2002, 26-27) Richard A Gabriel. 2002. The Great Armies of Antiquity. Praeger. Westport.
No information in the archaeological evidence for this time
"Axes made of polished stones." [1] PF: interpretation of those axes (that often have small dimensions) as battle axes is tentative. There is a rich groundstone industry, both for grinding plant material and ochres, and for small axes and maces. [2]
[1]: BIÇAKÇI E., S. BALCI, Ç. ALTUNBİLEK-ALGÜL, 2009. Tepecik-Çiftlik 2007 Yılı Çalışmaları. Ankara, p. 208-209
[2]: Ian Hodder, ‘Çatalhöyük: A Prehistoric Settlement on the Konya Plain’, The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia: (10,000-323 BCE), Edited by Gregory McMahon and Sharon Steadman, 2011, p. 945
unclear if domesticated horses became widespread in this period
unclear if domesticated horses became widespread in this period
Technology not found in archaeological evidence until much later
In the Near East pack animals appears by around 7000 BC onward. [1] "The donkey was probably domesticated from the African wild ass ’in more than one place’ but for the Nubian subspecies 5500-4500 BCE in the Sudan. [2] (Only in Africa, presumably, so the donkey would not have been here yet). "Well before 3000 BC donkeys in Upper Egypt were trained to carry loads." [3]
[1]: (Leverani 2014, 41) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
[2]: (Mitchell 2018, 39) Peter Mitchell 2018. The Donkey in Human History: An Archaeological Perspective. Oxford University Press. Oxford.
[3]: (Drews 2017, 34) Robert Drews. 2017. Militarism and the Indo-Europeanizing of Europe. Routledge. Abingdon.
In the Near East pack animals appears by around 7000 BC onward. [1] "The donkey was probably domesticated from the African wild ass ’in more than one place’ but for the Nubian subspecies 5500-4500 BCE in the Sudan. [2] (Only in Africa, presumably, so the donkey would not have been here yet). "Well before 3000 BC donkeys in Upper Egypt were trained to carry loads." [3]
[1]: (Leverani 2014, 41) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.
[2]: (Mitchell 2018, 39) Peter Mitchell 2018. The Donkey in Human History: An Archaeological Perspective. Oxford University Press. Oxford.
[3]: (Drews 2017, 34) Robert Drews. 2017. Militarism and the Indo-Europeanizing of Europe. Routledge. Abingdon.
Technology not found in archaeological evidence until much later
No information in the archaeological evidence for this time
No information in the archaeological evidence for this time
According to a military historian (this data needs to be checked by a polity specialist)the earliest reference in Greece c1600 BCE: "Early Mycenaean and Minoan charioteers wore an arrangement of bronze armor that almost fully enclosed the soldier, the famous Dendra panoply." [1] It is also earlier than the earliest reference in Anatolia, the Hittite period. [2]
[1]: (Gabriel and Metz 1991, 51) Richard A Gabriel. Karen S Metz. 1991. The Military Capabilities of Ancient Armies. Greenwood Press. Westport.
[2]: Bryce T. (2007) Hittite Warrior, Oxford: Osprey Publishing, pp. 15
No information in the archaeological evidence for this time
Earliest reference for present we currently have is for the Hittites. [1] In Egypt helmets were probably first worn by charioteers in the 18th Dynasty c1500 BCE. [2] According to a military historian (this data needs to be checked by a polity specialist) earliest known helmet dates to 2500 BCE in Sumer. [3]
[1]: Bryce T. (2007) Hittite Warrior, Oxford: Osprey Publishing, pp. 15-16
[2]: (Hoffmeier 2001) J K Hoffmeier in D B Redford. ed. 2001. The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt. Oxford University Press. Oxford.
[3]: (Gabriel 2002, 22) Richard A Gabriel. 2002. The Great Armies of Antiquity. Praeger. Westport.
Technology not yet available
No information in the archaeological evidence for this time
Technology not yet available